Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory

Not sure who to address here,

Just came on board, not even sure how to use the tools given on this site. But I believe it was Troc that was at the top so I will ask him and anyone else if that is allowed.

I have read the reference given. I do not think it matters who I am, just as long as I do not bog down progress on a site. I might be new, but the subject is not. I am trying to find some reason for this theory.

My question Mr. Thoc, is does this theory predict gravity, it just mentions it and a diagram that is an offshoot of general relativity. But no detail information is given., I cannot find in the search mode it the pdf file. Someone mentioned Planck's length, I began to wonder about, particularity of that when we do not even understand the nature of the tools most use how does this improve our reality. I see no advancements here in progress. Just one more problem given with no way of testing for information or making any statements that gives validity to this model.

Everyone on this subject seem to have a good foundation, I hope dealing with all that is involved in this theory, laws that we use as vehicles to maneuver within the realm of which you are dealing with which is our macro & micro world. So how is this better than say, Einstein? I do not see any. Not sure this is the way to start, but many question I do have.

paradox42

Oh, Paradox42, I'm only half the man you are...

~rasselas21

paradox42,


Welcome to the forum p42! You can address anyone, someone or everyone, and there are not too many rules around here.

Is your pseudo-name derived from asking the wrong question?


The main thing that Heim's theory predicts is the masses of the standard model particles (in ground, as well as all excited states). I don't think that it can be said that it predicts gravity, but there are some interesting modifications to Einstein's theory (GR).

There is also a key modification to Newton's gravitational law: Heim states that the gravitational force weakens, and goes to zero at distances ~150LY, and becomes weakly repulsive "at greater distances still". Finally, at the diameter of the Universe, back to zero again for good. It is then "unphysical"; and also at the very small distance of ~1/4 Schwarzchild radius (from GR).

He derives the "metron" from the product of "the minimum "distance and the Compton wavelength of a given mass; producing an area.

Differentials and Integrals are also "revised": throwing out the "infinitely" divisible (& recombining) lines to allow for a finite area.

He is also producing quantisized gravitational waves (gravitons), and predicting a FSL velocity of those waves at 4/3 ©. This has an interesting side note to the superluminal wave that hit our planet on Dec. 26, 2004; preceding (by light) the "largest space explosion of our time".

He follows Einstein's failed attempt at a unified theory with non-symmetric, non-hermitian metric tensors. Heim couples 3 interacting matrices in 6 dimensions to produce his basic metric tensor. This is an important addition: a resonant, symmetric state can not be produced with the coupling of 2 dissonant parameters, you need 3 to achieve a balance. This agrees with a "little" theory of mine, based on triad+ resonances.

Following that note, Heim arrives at 3 different values for the diameter of metronic spheres at the beginning of time: d1=.90992m, d2=1.06426m, d3=3.70121m. These 3 values have a special resonant relationship: BF1=d2-d1, BF2=d3-d2, BF3=d3-d1; BF1+BF2=BF3 (BS=5.58258). BeatFrequency/BeatSum shows the value of the conceptual "quantization" of differentials and integrals.

A negative point to Heim's theory is that it does not limit the number of excited states that each particle can have. Vibrational Resonance Theory, using BF/BS provides that limit.

Heim's theory also does away with the "hidden variables" hypothesis, clears up wave-particle duality, and eliminates the infinities of the quantum field. Not a bad start! Planks' finite quantum, interpreted with standing spherical wave resonances?




TRoc

First off, welcome to the party, paradox42...

In a manner of speaking, I'd say it does. Because it appears that Heim didn't just start with gravity and work backward to find a foundation that worked. (Though certainly he must have kept certain requirements in mind while formulating the foundations.) He does appear to predict new gravity behavior we haven't yet observed (as TRoc pointed out). But these are at such small and large scales that it is questionable whether we will be able to look for them anytime soon. Supposedly certain extended formulations (such as the 8-dimensional one indicated later in the paper) of Heim theory predict that gravity can be cancelled out by strong magnetic fields in certain configurations. These extensions are almost within reach of testability right now. We need better superconductors first though.

Using known constants of nature (G, h, c, etc.), Heim appears to have been able to formulate a geometric system that incorporates or generates these values and very accurately leads to the proper values of fundamental phenomena such as the fine-structure constant and the masses of several particles. Supposedly these derivations from Heim's first principles are relatively "direct", which if true implies that the model has not been "tweaked" to generate the right numbers in the way that the Standard Model of particle physics has. This is, I think, the best supporting evidence the theory has at the moment to indicate Heim may have at least done something right. Assuming the supposedly very complex math is correct, that is.

Next up, in response to TRoc's post...

Does anyone understand why there are 3 different diameters involved here? The paper really didn't make it clear. I thought initially that one referred to minimum distance and another to maximum distance... But then what is the significance of the third? I guess related to that is the question of where his ideas about the time evolution of the universe (dealing with both duration and size) come from... Are they conclusions reached by calculation from his base propositions? Or are they actually part of the base propositions? That information doesn't seem to be in the paper.

The paper is definitely very interesting. Very intriguing. But it doesn't really have enough information to "satiate".

I may reveal a bit too much of my naivete here, but... Can anyone explain why this is a problem? What is meant by "excited states"?

Last point on the topic of this paper directly... I think it might be useful to note that the paper is approaching 14 years old now. I know a lot of work has been done on this theory since then, both with Heim before his death and without him afterwards. The extended 8D work was in the news recently and received a cash prize from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...925331.200.html
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/m...hyperspace.html

I did a little searching for this incident, and found many articles and papers about a flare from the approximate location of the expected magnetar SGR 1806-20. However, I found no mention of any superluminal waves of any sort. The earliest detection I heard mentioned was a lower-intensity precursor of the big flash lasting about 1s and preceding it by about 142s.

Is this what you're referring to? The official hypothesis given is that it is possibly due to whatever event triggered the hypothesized "crust failure" which supposedly led to the actual "giant flare". Obviously there's a lot of hypothesizing going on, because we don't know a whole lot about the true nature of magnetars. But of all the sites I looked at I saw no mention of any hyopthesized superluminal phenomena.

(Well, actually there was one guy and his blog, who claimed that the gamma ray burst travelled the intervening 45000 light-years in preceisely 44.6 hours, corresponding to the exact time of the huge Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami.... But I'll leave the judgement of his credibility as an exercise for the reader. http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id1279.html)

(Edited to change "miles" to "light-years" in the last paragraph. Stupid mistake.)

This post has been edited by WaterBreath on Jan 12 2006, 06:53 PM

[QUOTE]

Muwuhahahahaha!

That was good for a laugh, thanks.

I did some searching for that too, and didn't find anything... real.

Hi,
I've seen that there's an interesting discussion here.
I'm the author of the recent New Scientist article Take a leap into hyperspace on Heim Theory.
Some of you are more knowledgeable in physics than I am but let me add something regarding this quote:

In his only peer reviewed paper Heim wrote that gravitational waves propagated with 4/3 the speed of light. He later corrected this error. There are no superluminal velocities in HT. There are, however, parallel universes with different natural constants, allowing for relative FTL travel when entering parallel space.
Someone also wrote he had the impression that Heim was a solitary man. Yes, he was. He was injured when he was 19 years old, since then he was without arms and almost deaf and blind. As a consequence he developed a perfect acoustic memory. He could remember word by work of what had been read to him say 20 years ago.
To give you an overview of the publications in english:
Research Group Heim Theory
Everything by Dröscher/Häuser
Good luck, HT is quite complicated and lacking english documentation, but it's worth a deeper look...
Haiko

Hello all, You guys have some great theories on this.
Lets just say you are very close.
CERN- WIll be able to answer some of your questions about this,
by the end year 2010.6
What they will discover in 2007 should put you back on the right track.
Let me also add I 'am NOT a timetravel, Iam not some kid messing with you.
I don't know all their is to know about physics.
the year of 2012, Will make most people close their eyes and turn their heads.
They simple will not execpt what is going to happin.
Keep up with your thoughts, You guys lets just say You Rock!

Haiko,


Thanks for the correction.


I found quite a lot of info, including a table of the predicted masses, on the ever growing Wikipedia site. Link : Heim Theory



Waterbreath,


I have no idea of why there are 3 different diameters involved, as far as how they were derived. I can really only offer what I already did: that there is a significant resonant relationship with those 3 values.

As far as that guy's blog: ????

As far as my statement, IMO, there is a choice between 2 pills to swallow. One is that because it is "not in the index" of what we know, it can't be related. The other is, given the fact that we (Science) have no working theory of EQ prediction, and we have no complete working theory of "how the Sun works" (NASA statement), and the "coincidence" of these 2 rare events, there is the possibility for correlation. It is important to note that the ~45 hr. difference in time arrivals is TOTALLY different than saying that the superluminal wave travelled 45,000 light years in 45 hrs. It is 45,000 lights years minus 45 hours. The other way to look at that idea is that the SGR 1806-20 event created a bow shock that would only have to reach the outer edge of the solar magnetosphere in order to effect Earth immediately. You can't ring half of a bell.

Someone else's opinion here.

As far as "the number of excited states", I assumed that to mean electron states in the order of elements. If it is other than that, I have been naive too!



TRoc

Leitz, thanks for the article, enjoyed reading it.

lilke the other post said. Wikipedia as an excellent post on it. Also read the "TAlk page for the Wikipedia article for a lot of insight. Also has an entry on the Metron. A Metron is simply a Planck length Square.

Heim theory is simply quantized General Relativity. Instead of using regular calculus with infinitesimals, Heim used the calculus of differences. Instead of using Tensor Calculus, he used a form of math he invented called Selector Calculus which is based on the calculus of differences. This avoided all the infinity problems and automatically made his theory quantum mechanically friendly.

Matter arises naturally as a closed resonance in a metron

I think somebody is translating Heim's selector calculus to tensor calculus and regular math. I think a lot of insights in his methods wil be lost then. That's the whole problem with quantum mechanics, it has always been a discrete type of mathematics having to deal with infinities forced on it.

Not only space but time is also quantized in Heim theory.

for a super power point presentation although in pdf download at

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/index.html

where it says talk
Dröscher, W., Häuser, J.
Future Space Propulsion based on Heim's Field Theorya4 letter (1.3 MB)
Talk at AIAA Space Propulsion Conference, von Braun Center, Huntsville Alabama(3.1 MB)
Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, Leopold - Franzens Universität Innsbruck, Austria
Department of Transportation, University of Applied Sciences and Department of High Performance Computing - Center of Logistics and Expert Systems GmbH, Salzgitter, Germany
AIAA Paper 2003-4990

the link is
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu..._Huntsville.pdf

Abstract: The Physics of Burkhard Heim and its Applications to Space Propulsion
by Illobrand von Ludwiger, M.Sc., prepared for the presentation at the First European Workshop on Field Propulsion, January 20-22, 2001 at the University of Sussex, Brighton, GB


The physicist Burkhard Heim, who deceased on January 14th , 2001, in Northeim, near Goettingen, was the German equivalent to Stephen Hawking and one of the greatest German physicists. Since he left the Max-Planck-Institute in Goettingen in 1954 because of his bodily handicap (he lost his eyes, his hearing and his hands by an accident) he worked privately. When he published his theory in two voluminous books (written in German, about 600 pages) in 1979 and 1984, nobody could believe that Heim discovered the unified mass formula. And nobody remembered that he had become famous in 1959, when he proposed a new propulsion system for spaceflight.

In this paper the author will give a short overview of Heim’s theory and then will deduce some experiments to manipulate gravity. Heim started with Einstein’s General Relativity Theory, but modified it for application in the microscopic range.

Here, the field equations become eigenvalue equations. For invariance reasons Heim had to introduce a 6-dimensional manifold. The existence of a smallest area required the computation with differences rather than with differentials, and with selectors instead of tensors. According to Heim, Einstein’s assumption of one single metric was too simple. He introduced three partial structures, which constitute four possible metrical tensors by correlations. This complicated geometry leads to 1956 eigenvalue equations from which it is possible to deduce the mass spectrum of elementary particles and to describe their internal structure fluxes.

Matter consists of an exchange of maxima and minima of condensations of the smallest areas in subspaces of an R6. Contrary to vacuum fluctuations, matter exists when the geometrical exchange processes always return to their starting point. These geometrical fluxes produce a spin. Since this spin tends to stay orthogonal to the vector of world velocity, each acceleration leads to a resistance force or inertia.

There are several possible ways to generate gravitational fields and gravitational waves in Heim’s theory. A theoretical possibility consists in the generation of gravitons from neutrons. The generation of acceleration fields has been investigated by the spaceflight company DASA. Heim himself proposed to test the contrabaric effect predicted by his theory. For financial reasons these experiments could not be finished.

Illobrand von Ludwiger, M.Sc.
Phone: ++49 (0) 8063 - 7065
Fax: ++49 (0) 8063 - 6187
eMail: illobrand_von_ludwiger@compuserve.com

Hi all-

I'm a newbie on this site, and haven't been a physics student for about 30 years...but long ago, thinking about Zeno's paradoxes, I thought that the development of a calculus with a smallest length might be a good idea, and thought about actually developing one, but never did. I thought at the time that the Planck length might be about right for a fundamental unit of distance. So, all the Heim stuff on the web has hit me pretty hard- I haven't been so enthusiastic about Physics in many years.

About Heim, I was wondering about more than a few things, and I wonder if some of the much more knowledgeable people on this site could help me with a few questions:

(1) Physical theories are generally concise. Heim's theories are not concise. It seems possible, in a large enough theory, to insert enough fudge factors to get any arbitrary value for the mass of a particular particle, or even a collection of them. It's kind of like being able to find the justification for any action in the bible, which is a very, very long theory, not a all concise. Does anyone see any sign of such conscious or unconscious trickery?

(2) Has anyone actually calculated the particle masses other than Heim and a couple of his collaborators? Do we really know that such calculations were done? God knows, I don't have the math to do such a calculation.

(3) I guess that there was a computer program, that Heim's collaborators said predicted the masses of the particles with even greater accuracy than Heim's original predictions, based on more exact measurements of physical constants and particle masses. Would it be possible to enter Heim's theories into a modern calculation program like Mathematica?

(4) Does anybody actually buy the hyper drive idea? Is it possible that Heim screwed himself over by having a pro-spaceflight bias, and arbitrarily warped his theories to ensure that result, possibly unconsciously?

We seem to be getting all of Heim's stuff in one lump- perhaps it is as if, for example, Linus Pauling's early work on DNA and physical chemistry was mixed in with his much later and more questionable work on vitamin C. One thing that worries me is that if someone does the hyper drive experiment, and doesn't measure any force produced, most of the physics community might discard the whole Heim theory. I don't really understand much of what he says, but the logic of his whole approach takes my breath away. I worry that the physics community might prematurely discard his theory, because of its length and difficulty, if a prediction or two goes awry.

very good insight about the need for discrete tensors.
A calculus with discrete lengths is already there- the caluclus of differences.

look at the power point presentation by Droscher Hauser given at Huntsville Alabama Spaceflight Center.

Heim is a purely geometric series. Given enough dimensions, you can theoretically prove anything. The extra dimensions, some say are the fudge factors. The Wikipedia talk pages provide a lot of back and forth discussion of the mass calculations.

My first intro to quantum mechanics was my first college chem course. The hydrogen electro orbits were quantized, the angular momentum was quantized, the energy levels, the photons emitted, and absorbed. Then as I went on in Physics we started talking about these wave functions that meant nothing but their squares meant something as a probablility density.

General Relativity was a grad course. I never had enough math to really understand it. In phyciscal chem we played around with lagrangians and hamiltonians and learned how to solve a lot of canned qmech systems but no deep understandings.

In electrical engineering i finally figured out that in quatum mech they were just going back and forth between a frequency and a time domain but calling it momentum and position or energy and time.

Heim gets to the bottom of it very quickly. He unites general relativity and guantum mechanics at the outset. He brings GR to quantum mechanics by bringing geometry to space and time. He brings quantum mechanics to GR by bringing discrete units of space and time to it. On the face of it, it appears to be the correct approach.

I just found a treasure trove through googling
http://www.betterhumans.com/News/5138/Default.aspx

the following are reproductions of posts by Hugh Deasy, HDeasy, the author of the Widkipedia articles on Heim theory and the Heim Biography. He is a physicist and knows what he is talking about. they were found on www.betterhumans.com

"hdeasy says:
Heim to replace String Theory
Didn't I already push Heim here? Forget - anyway, I started the Wikipedia pages on him - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theory . It has the ring of truth to it - as a physicist, I got Heim's books and checked over some of the very complex maths. What is apparent even without getting too deep int it is that it's wonderfully self-consistent. The idea is beautifully simple and the principle clear, in contrast to String theory. Also, unlike the latter, it correctly gives the masses.

Posted on 1/9/2006 3:50:25 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink"


" hdeasy says:
Maths in Heim
There is plenty of Math in Heim theory - too much, in fact, for normal mortals. That's the whole point. It takes a professor in Theoretical Physics on average a year of intensive study to tackle the math to the extent that he can appreciate the mass formula and maybe some of the Heim-Droscher stuff. I have Heim's books but haven't had the time to study them intently - dipping into them here and there, though, they are consistent - he plays around with a quantised version of the Ricci tensor and does a double transform involving curvilinear coordinates. This leads to a set of operators whose eigen-vectors give the mass spectrum of elementary particles. That alone is fiendishly complex and involves the 6-d version. The 8-2 (or 12-d) version gives additional grav forces including one for transforming photons to 'gravito-photons' = one type of which interacts with electrons and the other with nucleons - the latter has the largest cross section and has an anti-gravity effect. THus a sort of symmetry breaking leads to net anti-gravity. That's more or less the principle behind the space drive - you need strong magnets rotating to get the gravitophotons. How's that for sarters?

Posted on 1/9/2006 8:05:15 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink "

" Posted on 1/10/2006 10:18:29 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink

rodentman says:
Question for hdeasy
My question is: is there anybody who seriously understands both String Theory and the Heim-Loretnz theory?

If so, has there been any unbiased comparison of the two theories to see which would be a more likely canidate for a unifying theory?

So far, Ive heard that String Theory is unbelievably mathematically intricate, and this is why its so popular. Ive also heard that there has been no emperical evidence to support it or experiments to prove it. (I know they are currently trying to measure gravity seapage to no avail)

Rodentman



Posted on 1/11/2006 11:07:08 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink

hdeasy says:
People familiar with Heim and String theory
Yes, I believe that some of the doctors and professors of physics in the Heim-Theory group are familiar with String theory, Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) and Heim theory. Certainly Droscher would be, as it was he who brought out the correspondence with the standard model's QCD. I've read comments on the comparison between Heim Theory and LQG, which have certain similariittes - the spin lattice of LQG is like the network of 'metrons' in Heim - tiny surface areas of order Planck radius squared. Also, Heim & LQG are background independent, whereas String theory is background dependent - i.e. space is a neutral background for the particles to move around on. Thus all those comparing Heim, LQG and String Theory have some understanding of all 3 theories. LQG essentially re-invented quantised space years after Heim had introduced it with his metrons.

Posted on 1/11/2006 12:06:32 PM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink

hdeasy says:
People familiar with Heim and String theory
And as for predictions - yes, String Theory is notoriously incapable of predicting physical effects - certainly not the masses. Even LQG is short on predictions - one would be a minor change in speed of light over huge cosmic distances. But Heim Theory has many predicitons - it calcualtes the particle masses accurately - that was Heim's goal - to get a concrete prediction. Now although most masses are known, the neutrino masses are still inaccurately determined, and the Heim estimates are within the upper limits set by experiment. THus in the future, if they can be measured more precisely and found to agree with Heim's values, then that will be a further proof. The other proof would be to build the powerful rotating magnet system and confirm a weight reduction predicted by the gravito-photon interaction of Heim theory. The side effect would be quick spaceships!

Posted on 1/11/2006 12:13:54 PM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink "

-----------------------------------

" hdeasy says:
Advantages of Heim
Now I've been following the theory of Burkhard Heim for a few years now - I know someone in the Heim Theory group, and advised the journalist on the New Scientist article. I also wrote the original Wikipedia pagges on Heim, though they've undergone many changes - notably a French version suddenly appeared after the NS article last week! Besides the space drive the amazing thing is the mass formula - I have a copy of a shortish piece of code which takes the set of integer eigen-values from part I of the set of mass equations and generates from them the masses of 16 of the known particles to within six signifigant figures! This is amazing, as no other theory comes even close - the standard model has lattice QCD, which uses massive CPU time on most powerful computers to approximate some baryon masses - they were delight to get withing 10%! Heim gets to within 0.01% and also for leptons and other particles, on simple Sun wokstation in a fraction of a second of CPU.

What's more, the mass formula doesn't rely on a Higgs Boson. In the theory, mass arises as a consequence of the geometrical twists in space, which constitute the particles. Note that Heim's space is a lattice of 6-D surface elements of dimension h*h (Planck's constant squared). So the 'aether' is a lattice of these 'metrons' or surface elements - a bit like the spin lattice in Loop Quantum Gravity.

Finally, Heim is consistent with special and General Relativity, since his theory is a union of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. In quantising General Relativity, Heim did, 40 or 50 years ago, a thing similar to what Loop Quantum Gravity is doing now. The difference is in at which stage the quantisation is performed - for Heim it's the Chtistoffel symbols and Ricci tensor - for LQG something else (which explains why the latter doesn't get the same results of Heim: but their similar origin in Relativity means that both theories are 'background independent' - an advantage over String theory, which treats space as a passive background upon which the particles move).

So all in all Heim theory is really exciting and it's great that it's finally getting publicity again - Heim made the ocver of Stern and other mags in the 1950's and Ithink it was Time magazine or Paris Match that did a feature on him in the 60s. But then he retreated from pubic scrutiny until all the major scientists that recognised his genius (Heisenberg, Jourdan etc.) had died away - then 20 or 30 years later he popped up with the mass formula! A bit like Newton in his secrecy, hiding his results from his 'year of miracles' until Leibnitz threatened to steal his glory... So slowly the results of his isolated activity is coming to fruition. He reminds me of Mozart, as this is Mozart's year, in that the latter composed symphonies complete in his head and just jotted them down without error. Similarly Heim worked it all out in his head (he was nearly blind, deaf and handless) until the 'readout phase'.






Posted on 1/13/2006 9:20:00 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink

rodentman says:
Spread the Word!!
Hdeasy

I'm glad your spreading the word. It will be tough, since so many people have fallen in love with string theory.

At many universities, every student of theoretical and quantum physics is wanting to get into string theory.

Also, a lot of the public is making a mockery of the Heim theory and the AIAA award. They believe its another pork project funded by idiot politicians. (Check out the starTrek board)


It remeinds me a bit of how Life extension was seen a few years back. Anyone who suggested it was possible was delusional.

RodentMan

Posted on 1/13/2006 10:30:39 AM • Rating: None/5 • Permalink "